Apple argues "even a moron" can spot company difference

Giving opening arguments on Thursday, lawyers for Apple Computer asserted the company's right to distribute music through its iTunes music store, rejecting claims by The Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd. that doing so violated a 1991 trademark agreement.

According to the Associated Press, Apple lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the "distribution of digital entertainment content" was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to interfere with the other's business.

Grabiner said "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.

"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what [the agreement] says and it is inescapable," he said.

In his own opening arguments on Wednesday, Apple Corps' lawyer Geoffrey Vos said Apple Computer's music distribution business "was flatly contradictory to the provisions of the agreement."

Vos argued that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side, the AP reported.

So you know how iTunes delivers condensed, commerical-free programs of the Superbowl & NCAA games? I would so purchase the video of this courtroom battle if it was presented in the same form! I think we might be able to pull quotes of the decade out of this.

Apple Computer lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the 'distribution of digital entertainment content' was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to tread on the other's sphere of business. Grabiner said 'even a moron in a hurry' could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.

Exactly. People know who the Beatles (and Apple Corps) are, and people know who Apple Computer is. There is no criminal or anticontractual intent here. It is possible for either company to operate in its own space.

I just think it's hillarious that a lawyer used the phrase "even a moron in a hurry" in a British court. Nice to see use good old common sense as an argument in court. That being said ... maybe this looks a hell of a lot like this and I'm just not seeing it. Notice the Green Apple Corps of New York City uses exactly the same logo as Apple Corps in Engalnd. You don't see them getting sued for it. If you look through google images for Apple Logo you'll see nothing but Apple computer for a long, long time. Hell, even the Turkey Knob Apple Logo comes up on page 3 or 4. You finally come across a lone Apple Corps logo at the top of page 6 ... <sigh>

At least it'll make for another rousing court battle. In any case, Apple should demand at the end of everything that the Beatles catalogue be made available on iTMS and immunity from further litigation brought forth by Apple Corps concerning the use of the AAPL logo.

Apple Computer does not record or produce music, just distribute it. That said...
The retail operation is called iTunes Music Store, not Apple Music Store.
The mp3 player is the Apple iPod, not Apple Music Player.

The most confusing part is someone might look at the name "Apple Records" and think it's a subsidiary or partner with "Apple Computer." That confusion, however, has likely existed since well before the iTunes Music Store came on the scene. So nothing has changed.

The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be buying any Beetles music anytime soon, not that I ever did anyways.

I think I will stick to Hendrix and Clapton unless Eric decides to sue someone for some random reason to get money, although since he isn't British maybe he isn't out to screw American companies out of money, maybe he will sue a British one.

Originally posted by drakethegreatThe only thing I know for sure is that I won't be buying any Beetles music anytime soon, not that I ever did anyways.

That's probably due to the fact that you can't spell it properly.

Quote:

I think I will stick to Hendrix and Clapton unless Eric decides to sue someone for some random reason to get money, although since he isn't British maybe he isn't out to screw American companies out of money, maybe he will sue a British one.